Advertisement

A Survey of the Legal Issues Facing Digital Forensic Experts

  • Sydney Liles
  • Marcus Rogers
  • Marianne Hoebich
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 306)

Abstract

This paper discusses the results of a survey focusing on the legal issues facing digital forensic experts in the United States. The survey attracted 71 respondents from law enforcement, academia, government, industry and the legal community. It extends the well-known Brungs-Jamieson research on attitudes and priorities of the Australian digital forensic community. The results are compared with those from the Brungs-Jamieson study to determine if digital forensic experts from different countries share priorities and concerns. Several differences are observed between stakeholder groups regarding the importance of specific legal issues. Nevertheless, the results indicate that, despite differing opinions, it is possible to find a common ground that can help craft public policy and set funding priorities.

Keywords

Legal issues digital forensic experts survey 

References

  1. 1.
    V. Baryamureeba and F. Tushabe, The enhanced digital investigation process model, Proceedings of the Fourth Digital Forensic Research Workshop, 2004.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Broadhurst, Developments in the global law enforcement of cyber-crime, Policing: International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, vol. 29(3), pp. 408–433, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    V. Broucek and P. Turner, Bridging the divide: Rising awareness of forensic issues amongst systems administrators, presented at the Third International System Administration and Networking Conference, 2002.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Brungs and R. Jamieson, Identification of legal issues for computer forensics, Information Systems Management, vol. 22(2), pp. 57–66, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Carney and M. Rogers, The Trojan made me do it: A first step in statistical based computer forensics event reconstruction, International Journal of Digital Evidence, vol. 2(4), 2004.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Conley and R. Bryan, A survey of computer crime legislation in the United States, Information and Communications Technology Law, vol. 8(1), pp. 35–58, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. King, Electronic monitoring to promote national security impacts workplace privacy, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, vol. 15(3), pp. 127–147, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Laubscher, D. Rabe, M. Olivier, J. Eloff and H. Venter, Computer forensics for a computer-based assessment: The preparation phase, Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Information Security South Africa Conference, 2005.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Meyers and M. Rogers, Computer forensics: The need for standardization and certification, International Journal of Digital Evidence, vol. 3(2), 2004.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    F. Pocar, New challenges for international rules against cyber-crime, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, vol. 10(1), pp. 27–37, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    L. Reid, Expert opinion: Interview with Amanda M. Hubbard, J.D., Fulbright Scholar, former trial attorney, Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, U.S. Department of Justice, Journal of Information Privacy and Security, vol. 2(1), pp. 47–56, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Reith, C. Carr and G. Gunsch, An examination of digital forensic models, International Journal of Digital Evidence, vol. 1(3), 2002.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Saudi, An Overview of Disk Imaging Tools in Computer Forensics, InfoSec Reading Room, SANS Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, 2001.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    F. Witter, Legal Aspects of Collecting and Preserving Computer Forensic Evidence, InfoSec Reading Room, SANS Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sydney Liles
  • Marcus Rogers
  • Marianne Hoebich

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations